Product Naming Review

Three review passes

You MUST create a task for each pass and complete them in order.

Pass 1: Structural completeness

Read ${user_config.product_home}/identity/naming.md. Check that:

1. Header fields present: Status, Date, Approved by, Brief reference
2. Chosen name section: name, category (one of functional / invented / experiential / evocative), pronunciation, stylization
3. Philosophy section: non-empty, at least one paragraph
4. Usage rules: all 4 subsections populated:
   • Forbidden variants
   • How it appears in sentences
   • What this product is NOT called
   • Context-specific usage
5. Validation record: both automated filters populated with a result and notes (Linguistic / phonetic SCRATCH, Brand collision search)
6. Domain availability grid: a Domain availability (finalists × TLDs) section is present; it has a row per finalist and a cell per TLD with one of ✓ / ✗ / ? in every cell. A ? counts as populated (the grid records the ambiguous verdict); only a blank or missing cell is a structural finding
7. Trademark table: both jurisdictions present (USPTO, WIPO) with a result (including skipped)
8. Generation context: pool size, lens 2 adjacent domain, cross-lens hit, reruns

If any required section is missing or empty, record as a structural finding.

Pass 2: Validation record honesty

1. No silent relabeling. If the trademark check was skipped for any jurisdiction, the artifact must say skipped, not clear.
2. Filter results match claims. The Brand collision search row's Result column (PASS/ELIMINATED) should match the Notes column's verdict pattern description; no contradiction.
3. Chosen name not in forbidden variants. The chosen name (any capitalization) must not appear in the forbidden variants list.
4. Stylization rule consistent. Context-specific usage examples must follow the stylization rule (e.g., if the rule says "Trabajador, never TRABAJADOR", no example uses TRABAJADOR).
5. Chosen TLD path exists. The chosen name must have at least one ✓ (available) cell in the domain availability grid, OR the philosophy / usage rules must (a) name a specific already-registered TLD by suffix (e.g., .com, .io) and (b) state an acquisition plan or rationale for why the chosen name still works without an available path. A generic "we'll figure out a domain later" does not satisfy this check.

Pass 3: Philosophy-to-evidence alignment

1. Philosophy claims are evidence-grounded. If the philosophy says "evokes craftsmanship", the chosen name should plausibly do so given its category and SMILE strengths recorded in earlier sections.
2. Philosophy does not contradict the brief's positioning. The brief is at ${user_config.product_home}/product/brief.md. Read it. The naming philosophy should be consistent with the brief's tone, target users, and category — not pull in the opposite direction.

Verdict

After all three passes, write a verdict to the conversation:

• PASS — all three passes clean
• PASS WITH NOTES — minor issues the producer should consider but not blocking (e.g., philosophy section is short but not empty)
• FAIL — one or more material issues (e.g., validation record is dishonest, required section empty, chosen name contradicts forbidden variants list)

For each finding, include:

• Pass: which pass the finding came from (1, 2, or 3)
• Severity: CRITICAL / MAJOR / MINOR
• Where: section name and quoted excerpt if possible
• Why: what the rule is and how this violates it

End your verdict with a one-line summary suitable for the producer to quote back to the CPTO if needed.